Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Which is more important: that a government and economy operate by Libertarian principles or that individuals live in Libertarian freedom?
And speaking of freedom, the word seems to be a term of art…actually, I've come to see that almost all nouns (and many verbs) are used as terms of art by this administration. Watching how it's used and inducing a definition from its context (we're a free nation, free nations banded together in a Coalition of the Willing, now Iraq is free, freedom mush be defended), my current working definition of "freedom" is "a legal, economic and political environment in which you can do anything you can afford are able to do."
Yes, the cheesy half hearted bullshit denial of the impact wealth has on this "freedom" while leaving it in place in such a way as to make clear it remains central to the definition, is part of the definition.
What do you think? Did I get it right?
LATER: the working definition of "freedom" was slightly edited from the original "a legal, economic and political environment in which you can do anything you can afford want to do."
I'm not sure what you mean by "Libertarian principles" as opposed to "Libertarian freedom." Could you explain that a little? To me "freedom" is one of those slippery little words that mean whatever people want it to mean. My only reply is "I can't define freedom, but I know it when I see it" is about the best I can do. The Founding Fathers defined freedom within a fairly strict economic system for the economic and political benefit of white males. Ever since, "we the people" have been struggling to expand their model. So whatever it is, the quest for it seems unending.
"Which is more important: that a government and economy operate by Libertarian principles or that individuals live in Libertarian freedom?"
I strongly suspect that if the government and economy abandon libertarian principles, individuals will not have long to enjoy their libertarian freedom.
Yvelle:
What about equality? What are you measuring? "Equality" is another term of art, I'm afraid.
Don:
My honest take on what "freedom" means is up there in the original post. But I did specify "Libertarian freedom," the view that one should be able to do anything within their capability other than impose on someone else's free choice.
I have to say that I too am not entirely clear on what you mean between libertarian principled government and libertarian freedom. Most libertarians are not anarchists and see value in the rule of law and peceful settlement of disputes in courts. So if the question is " Do you prefer a government on/by libertarian principles or a Hobbesian state of nature ? " I'll take the Libertarian social contract.
I really don't think that one follows without the other. There's no such thing as a free ride.
Ah but it does. The choice of unlimited statism or anarchy is a false dichotomy